BookOfAnswers

8/10/2019 BookOfAnswers

1/113

THE

BOOK

OF

REAL

ANSWERSTO

EVERYTHING!

World Transformation MovementThe

presents

by Jeremy Griffith


2/113

The Book of Real Answers to Everything!, by Jeremy Griffith:

Published by WTMPublishing and Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 103 136 778)

First published in Australia 2011

All inquiries to:

WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT(WTM

)

GPOBox 5095, Sydney NSW2001, Australia

Phone: + 61 2 9486 3308 Fax:+ 61 2 9486 3409

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.worldtransformation.com or www.humancondition.com

The WTMis a non-profit organisation which holds an Authority to Fundraise for Charitable Purposes in

NSW, Australia.

ISBN 978-1-74129-007-3

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

This book is protected by Australian copyright laws and international copyright treaty provisions. All rights

are reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the

copyright owner. The moral rights of the authors Jeremy Griffith and Harry Prosen are asserted.

The Book of Real Answers to Everything!copyright Fedmex Pty Ltd (ACN 096 099 286) 2011-2013.

Trade marks: WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT, WTM, the arms-raised man before the rising sun

logo are registered trade marks of Fedmex Pty Ltd (ACN 096 099 286).

Cover by Jeremy Griffith, copyright Fedmex Pty Ltd (ACN 096 099 286) 2011.

Edited by Fiona Cullen-Ward.

Typeset by Lee Jones and Polly Watson.
mailto:[email protected]://www.worldtransformation.com/http://www.humancondition.com/http://www.humancondition.com/http://www.worldtransformation.com/mailto:[email protected]


3/113


4/113

BLANK PAGE


5/113

Foreword

While I am a psychiatrist, not a biologist, the subject of our human condition isthe

area of inquiry where psychiatry and biology finally converge. Evidence for this is theterm Evolutionary Psychology, which is one of the theories currently used to explain

human behaviourspecifically the human condition. Given the plight of the world

which we humans are responsible forthe human condition is certainly the subject upon

which all areas of science shouldbe focused. As the Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson

has said, The human condition is the most important frontier of the natural sciences(Consilience,

1998, p.298).

However, in terms of understanding our peculiar human condition, I dont believe

the theories that have been put forward by mainstream biologists have succeeded in

presenting a satisfactory, truly accountable explanation of it. In fact, I have become

aware of two statements made by the great Australian biologist Charles Birch that I think

accurately capture the stalled situation that has existed in biology, which are that Biology

has not made any real advance since Darwin (Freedom Book 1, 2009, Part 4:4B), and Biology right now

awaits its Einstein in the realm of consciousness studies (ABCRadio National, Ockhams Razor, 16Apr.

1997). I say has existed because I believe, as Ive said on occasions elsewhere, that Jeremy

Griffiths biological treatise on the human condition does finally provide humanity with

a truly accountable explanation of this most perplexing and important of subjects. The

clarity with which he explains the grand concepts featured in this book alone is testament

to this.

I must say I am so thrilled with Griffiths explanation of the human condition that

I am dedicated to promoting it wherever possible. As a psychiatrist I recognise that the

impasse to finding this great breakthrough understanding of the human condition has beenthat the subjective issue of the human condition has been all but impossible for humans to

think effectively about, but now that this great psychological denial blocking access to the

truth about ourselves has finally been penetrated and understanding of ourselves found, the

now long overdue psychological rehabilitation of the human race canfinally occur. Again,

as I have also said on numerous occasions, this is all soexcitingI am quite overwhelmed

to be here on Earth when theseREALanswers are finally established!

I cannot recommend strongly enough the understandings contained in this book, or in

the more complete presentation that is provided in Griffiths book Freedom.

Harry Prosen, M.D., M.Sc.

December 2011

Harry Prosen is a professor of psychiatry who has worked in the field for over 50years, including

chairing two departments of psychiatry and serving as president of the Canadian Psychiatric

Association. Professor Prosen was recently appointed one of 500Specially Selected Fellows of the

American College of Psychiatrists, and a Distinguished Life Member of the American Psychiatric

Association. He is also psychiatric consultant to the Bonobo Species Preservation Society.


6/113

Exciting Media Release

for this books principal article, What is Science?

New article unlocks impasse for science and human understanding17 January 2012

The World Transformation Movement today published a ground-breaking article titled What is science?by

Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith that offers hope to the publics growing disenchantment with science, in

fact revealing that science is the saviour of the human race.

The article is the latest chapter in Griffiths online publication, The Book of Real Answers to Everything!This

book explains that the real issue before us a species has always been the issue of the human condition, which

is our species capacity for good and evilGriffith maintains that the role of science has been to one day find

understanding of this crux issue.

The What is science?article presents for the first time the definitive history of how science, including mainstream

theories of Social Darwinism, Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology, has had to avoid and deny that the

human condition exists, in so doing failing to provide much-needed answers about human nature.

However, Griffith explains that while science has necessarily had to take a limited reductionist and mechanisticapproach, its discovery of the difference in the way genes and nerves work has been a key insight that at last

makes it possible to explain the human condition.

The public has all but given up on science because, until now, it has been unable to solve the crux issue before

us as a species of the human condition and provide the much-sought-after answer to the deepest and darkest

of questions, of are we humans fundamentally good or bad? Griffith said.

The What is science?article cites a 2011Australian Academy of Science report that found a staggering 43

percent drop over the last 20years in the number of Australian Year 11and 12students studying science from

94percent to 51percent.

This article explains that because the human condition has been such a terrifying subject, scientists, like

everyone, have necessarily been unable to acknowledge it existed, let alone admit it was the subject that science

had to solve if there was to be a future for the human race, Griffith continued.

However, and thankfully just in the nick of time, through understanding how genes and nerves work, biology

has been able to solve the human condition and provide humans with relieving explanation for why they are

good and not bad after all. So at last we can answer the question what is science with that it is the saviour of

the human race, as it was always intended to be!

On this greatest of all breakthroughs in science, Professor Harry Prosen, a former president of the Canadian

Psychiatric Association, is quoted in the article saying: I have no doubt this biological explanation of the human

condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological rehabilitation of the human race.

Astonishingly, in just 19pages, the What is science?article presents a clear distillation of the works of some of

the worlds leading scientists, including biologist Edward O. Wilson, zoologist Richard Dawkins, science writer

Robert Wright and anthropologist Robert Sussman, and how they necessarily have not been able to provide

humanity with truthful, real answers about human behaviour.

Of Griffiths ability to impart such clarity, Professor Scott Churchill, Professor and Chair of the Psychology

Department at the University of Dallas, has said: Griffith manages to summarise book-length expositions of

these oftentimes obtuse and varying perspectives on human evolution with clarity and brilliance.

What is Science? is one of several short articles developed by Griffith to help demonstrate to readers the

universal application of his synthesis to subjects wide and varied. The articles, on topics including What is

Love?, Is there a God? and Consciousness, appear in Griffiths latest publication, The Book of Real Answers

to Everything!(The book is freely available at www.worldtransformation.com/book-of-real-answers.)

About the WTM:

The WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT(WTM)is dedicated to transforming the individual, the human

race and thus our world through bringing redeeming and ameliorating or healing biological understanding to

the underlying problem in all human affairs of the human condition.
http://www.worldtransformation.com/book-of-real-answershttp://www.worldtransformation.com/book-of-real-answers


7/113

The Human ConditionWritten by Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith, 2011

The great mystery, dilemma and paradox of the human condition is humans

capacity for what has been called good and evil, BUTuntil we could explainour less-than-ideally-behaved, seemingly-imperfect, even fallen or corrupted

condition we could barely afford to even acknowledge the subject.

MOST WONDERFULLY, however, the human condition is no longer an

unapproachable, depressing no-go zone because biology is at last able to provide

the dreamed-of exonerating, good-and-evil-reconciling, burden-of-guilt-lifting

and thus rehabilitatingin fact, HUMAN-RACE-TRANSFORMINGexplanation

of our human-condition-aficted lives! (And it should be mentioned that this

explanation of our species deeply psychologically troubled condition is notthe

psychosis-avoiding, trivialising, dishonest account of the human condition that

the biologist E.O. Wilson has put forward in his theory of Eusociality, but the

psychosis-addressing-and-solving, realexplanation of it.)

Francis Bacons Study for self-portrait(detail) 1976

The truth is the human condition is the agonising, underlying, core, realquestion

in all of human life, of are humans good or are we possibly the terrible mistake that all

the evidence seems to unequivocally indicate we might be? While its undeniable that

humans are capable of great love, we also have an unspeakable history of brutality, rape,

torture, murder and war. Despite all our marvellous accomplishments, we humans have

been the most ferocious and destructive force that has ever lived on Earthand the eternal

question has been why? Even in our everyday behaviour, why have we humans been so

competitive, selfish and aggressive when clearly the ideals of life are to be the complete

opposite, namely cooperative, selfless and loving? In fact, why are we soruthlessly

competitive, selfish and brutal that human life has become all but unbearable and we havenearly destroyed our own planet?!


8/113

Unableuntil nowto truthfully answer this deepest and darkest of all questions

of our seemingly-highly-imperfect human condition, of are we humans fundamentally

good or bad, we learnt to avoid the whole depressing subjectso much so, in fact, that

the human condition has been described as the personal unspeakable, and as the black

box inside of humans they cant go near. Indeed, the famous psychoanalyst Carl Jung wasreferring to the terrifying subject of the human condition when he wrote that When it [our

shadow]appearsit is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil

of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil

(Aionin The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9/2, p.10). Yes, the face of absolute evilis the shattering

possibilityif we allowed our minds to think about itthat we humans might indeed

be a terrible mistake! Socrates famously said that the unexamined life is not worth living,

and its true that we needed to find understanding of ourselves, examinethe issue of the

human condition, BUT,its alsotrue that trying to go anywhere near the subject, trying to

conduct any examin[ation]of the human condition, raised such shatteringdoubts about

our meaning and worth as humans that it wasnt worthdoing if we were to actually

continue living!! In fact, since almost any thinking on any subject brought our mind oneway or another into contact with the unbearable issue of the human condition, even that

most basic task for conscious humans has been a nightmareas the Australian comedian

Rod Quantock once said, Thinking can get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt (Sydney

Morning Herald, 5July 1986). Yes, the truth is the human mind has had to live on the very surface

of existence, live an extremelysuperficial, escapist existence.

So even though the issue of the human condition has been the real, underlying issue

we needed to solve if we were to exonerate and thus rehabilitate the human race, we have

been sofearful and insecure about the subject that instead of confronting it and trying to

solve it we have been preoccupied denying and escaping it. The truth is that while much

attention has been given to the need to love each other and the environment if we are

to save the world, the realneed if we were to actually succeed in doing so was to find

the means to love the dark side of ourselvesto find the reconciling understanding of

our good-and-evil-afflicted human condition that was causingso much suffering and

destruction! Carl Jung was forever saying that wholeness for humans depends on the ability

to own their own shadowbecause he recognised that onlyfinding understanding of our

dark side could end our underlying insecurity about our fundamental goodness and worth

as humans and, in doing so, make us whole. The pre-eminent philosopher Sir Laurens

van der Post was making the same point when he said, True love is love of the difficult and

unlovable (Journey Into Russia, 1964, p.145)and that Only by understanding how we were all a part of

the same contemporary pattern [of wars, cruelty, greed and indifference]could we defeat those dark

forces with a true understanding of their nature and origin (Jung and the Story of Our Time, 1976, p.24).True compassion was ultimately the onlymeans by which peace and love could come

to our planet and it could only be achieved through understanding. Drawing again from

the writings of van der Post: Compassion leaves an indelible blueprint of the recognition that life

so sorely needs between one individual and another; one nation and another; one culture and another.

It is also valid for the road which our spirit should be building now for crossing the historical abyss

that still separates us from a truly contemporary vision of life, and the increase of life and meaning

that awaits us in the future (ibid. p.29). Yes, only true understanding of the nature and originof

our species good-and-evil-troubled, even fallen or corrupted condition could allow

us to cross the historical abyssthat separate[d]usfrom a compassion[ate], reconciled,

ameliorated, meaning[ful]view of ourselves.

8

World Transformation Movement The Book of Real Answers to Everything!


9/113

Most wonderfully and relievingly, this futurethat Jung and van der Post looked

forward to, of finding the understanding that would mature the human race from a

psychologically insecure, human-condition-afflicted state to a psychologically secure,

relieved, human-condition-understood-and-reconciled state, has nowfinallyarrived. One

day there had to be, to quote The Rolling Stones, sympathy for the devilone day, we hadtofind true understandingof the nature and originof the dark forces in human nature, and

that day is here!

Yes, the eternal hope, faith, trust and indeed belief of the human race has been that the

day would come when the all-clarifying, reconciling, healing and thus TRANSFORMING

explanation of the human condition would finally be found, freeing humans at last of their

insecure existence. And, as incredible as it is, through the advances that have been made

in science, it is now possible to present that dreamed-of, reconciling and rehabilitating

understanding of ourselves. That holy grail of the human journey of finding first principle-

based, biological explanation of the human condition is finally here. (Again, it has to be

stressed that this explanation is not the psychosis-avoiding, trivialising, dishonest account

of the human condition that E.O. Wilson put forward in his theory of Eusociality, but thepsychosis-addressing-and-solving, truthful, realexplanation of the human condition.)

From a situation of bewildering confusion and darkness about what it is to be human

we have broken through to a world drenched in the light of relieving understanding. The

dawn of enlightenment has arrived; the sun is finally coming up to drain away all the

darkness from our lives. This is THEmost amazing moment in human history!

So, what is the wonderful reconciling, exonerating and thus rehabilitating, truthful

biological explanation of our species extremely competitive, aggressive, angry,

selsh, greedy, materialistic, escapist, articial, supercial, alienatedin fact,

deeply psychologically distressed and lonelyhuman condition that brings

about the long dreamed-of liberation from that terrible state and the complete

TRANSFORMATIONof the human race?

Certainly, we have invented excuses to justify our species seemingly-imperfect

competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour, the main one being that we have savage

animal instincts that make us fight and compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate.

Of course, this explanation, which has been put forward in the biological theories of

Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and

E.O. Wilsons Eusociality and basically argues that genes are competitive and selfish

and thats why we are, cant be the realexplanation for our competitive, selfish and

aggressive behaviour. Firstly, it overlooks the fact that our human behaviour involves our

unique fully conscious thinking mind. Descriptions like egocentric, arrogant, deluded,artificial, hateful, mean, immoral, alienated, etc, all imply a consciousness-derived,

psychologicaldimension to ourbehaviour. The realissuethe psychological problem in

our thinking minds that we have suffered fromis the dilemma of our human condition,

the issue of our species good-and-evil-afflicted, less-than-ideal, even fallen or

corrupted, state. We humans suffer from a consciousness-derived, psychologicalHUMAN

CONDITION, notan instinct-controlled animal conditionour condition is unique to

us fully conscious humans. (A brief description of the theories of Social Darwinism,

Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Eusociality that

blame our divisive behaviour on savage instincts rather than on a consciousness-derived

psychosis is presented in the What is Science?articlein this, The Book of Real Answers

9

The Human Condition
http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/


10/113

to Everything!, with the complete account provided in Part 4:12of the freely-available,

online book Freedom Book 1.)

The second reason the savage-instincts-in-us excuse cant possibly be the real

explanation for our divisive, selfish and aggressive behaviour is that it overlooks the fact

that we humans have altruistic, cooperative, loving moral instinctswhat we recognise asour conscienceand these moral instincts in us are notderived from reciprocity, from

situations where you only do something for others in return for a benefit from them, as

Evolutionary Psychologists would have us believe. And nor are they derived from warring

with other groups of humans as advocates of the theory of Eusociality would have us

believe. No, we have an unconditionallyselfless,fullyaltruistic, truly loving, universally-

considerate-of-others-not-competitive-with-other-groups,genuinelymoral conscience.

Our original instinctive state was the oppositeof being competitive, selfish and aggressive:

it was fully cooperative, selfless and loving. (How we humans acquired unconditionally

selfless moral instincts when it would seem that an unconditionallyselfless,fullyaltruistic

trait is going to self-eliminate and thus not ever be able to become established in a species

is briefly explained in the above-mentioned What is Science?article, and more fullyexplained in Part 8:4of Freedom Book 1however, the point being made here is that

the savage-instincts-in-us excuse is completely inconsistent with the fact that we have

genuine and entirely moral instincts,NOTsavageinstincts. Charles Darwin recognised the

difference in our moral nature when he said that the moral sense affords the best and highest

distinction between man and the lower animals (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.495).)

So, what is the truthful, human-condition-addressing rather than human-condition-

avoiding, biological explanation of our species present seemingly-highly-imperfect,

competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour? The answer begins with an analysis of

consciousness.

Very briefly, nerves were originally developed for the coordination of movement in

animals, but, once developed, their ability to store impressionswhich is what we refer

to as memorygave rise to the potential to develop understanding of cause and effect.

If you can remember past events, you can compare them with current events and identify

regularly occurring experiences. This knowledge of, or insight into, what has commonly

occurred in the past enables you to predict what is likely to happen in the future and to

adjust your behaviour accordingly. Once insights into the nature of change are put into

effect, the self-modified behaviour starts to provide feedback, refining the insights further.

Predictions are compared with outcomes and so on. Much developed, and such refinement

occurred in the human brain, nerves can sufficiently associateinformation to reason

how experiences are related, learn to understandand become CONSCIOUSof, or aware

of, or intelligentabout, the relationship between events that occur through time. Thusconsciousness means being sufficiently aware of how experiences are related to attempt to

manage change from a basis of understanding.

What is so significant about this process is that once our nerve-based learning system

became sufficiently developed for us to become conscious and able to effectively manage

events, our conscious intellect was then in a position to wrest control from our gene-based

learning systems instincts, which, up until then, had been controlling our lives. Basically,

once our self-adjusting intellect emerged it was capable of taking over the management of

our lives from the instinctive orientations we had acquired through the natural selection of

genetic traits that adapted us to our environment.

10

http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-the-great-denials-in-biology/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-the-great-denials-in-biology/http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-how-humans-acquired-our-moral-soul-and-conscience/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-how-humans-acquired-our-moral-soul-and-conscience/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-how-humans-acquired-our-moral-soul-and-conscience/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-how-humans-acquired-our-moral-soul-and-conscience/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-how-humans-acquired-our-moral-soul-and-conscience/http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-the-great-denials-in-biology/


11/113

HOWEVER, it was at this juncture, when our conscious intellect challenged our

instincts for control, that a terrible battle broke out between our instincts and intellect, the

effect of which was the extremely competitive, selfish and aggressive state that we call the

human condition.

To elaborate, when our conscious intellect emerged it was neither suitable norsustainable for it to be orientatedby instinctsit had tofind understandingto operate

effectively and fulfil its great potential to manage life. However, when our intellect began

to exert itself and experiment in the management of life from a basis of understanding, in

effect challenging the role of the already established instinctual self, a battle unavoidably

broke out between the instinctive self and the newer conscious self.

Our intellect began to experiment in understanding as the only means of discovering

the correct and incorrect understandings for managing existence, but the instinctsbeing

in effect unaware or ignorant of the intellects need to carry out these experiments

opposed any understanding-produced deviations from the established instinctive

orientations: they criticised and tried to stop the conscious minds necessary search

for knowledge. To illustrate the situation, imagine what would happen if we put a fullyconscious mind on the head of a migrating bird. The bird is following an instinctive

flight path acquired over thousands of generations of natural selection, but it now has a

conscious mind that needs to understandhow to behave, and the only way it can acquire

that understanding is by experimenting in understandingfor example, thinking, Ill

fly down to that island and have a rest. But such a deviation from the migratory flight

path would naturally result in the instincts resisting the deviation, leaving the conscious

intellect in a serious dilemma: if it obeys its instincts it will not feel criticised by its

instincts but neither will it find knowledge. Obviously, the intellect could not afford to

give in to the instincts, and unable to understand and thus explain why its experiments

in self-adjustment were necessary, the conscious intellect had no way of refuting the

implicit criticism from the instincts even though it knew it was unjust. Until the conscious

mind found the redeeming understanding of why it had to defy the instincts (namely

the scientific understanding of the difference in the way genes and nerves process

information, that one is an orientating learning system while the other is an insightful

learning system), the intellect was left having to endure a psychologically distressed,

upset condition, with no choice but to defy that opposition from the instincts. The only

forms of defiance available to the conscious intellect were to attackthe instincts unjust

criticism, try to denyor block from its mind the instincts unjust criticism, and attempt to

provethe instincts unjust criticism wrong. In shortand to return to our human situation

because we were the species that acquired the fully conscious mindthe psychologically

upset angry, alienatedand egocentrichuman-condition-afflicted state appeared. Ourconscious thinking self, which is the dictionary definition of ego, became centred

or focused on the need to justify itself. We became ego-centric, self-centred or selfish,

preoccupied with aggressively competing for opportunities to prove we are good and not

badwe unavoidably became selfish, aggressiveand competitive.

What is soexonerating, rehabilitating and healing about this explanation of the human

condition is that we can finally appreciate that there was a very goodreason for our angry,

alienated and egocentric livesin fact, we can now see why we have not just been ego-

centric, but ego-infuriated, even ego-gone-mad-with-murderous-anger for having to live

with so much unjust criticism. No wonder we led such an evasive, escapist, superficial and

11

The Human Condition


12/113

artificial, greedy, smother-ourselves-with-material-glory-while-we-lacked-the-spiritual-

glory-of-compassionate-understanding-of-ourselves existence! Yes, we can nowsee

that our conscious mind wasNOTthe evil villain it has so long been portrayed assuch

as in the Bible where Adam and Eve are demonised and banishedfrom the Garden of

Eden(Gen. 3:23)

of our original innocent, all-loving, moral state for taking the fruitfromthe tree of knowledge (ibid. 3:3,2:17). Yes, science has finally enabled us to lift the so-called

burden of guilt from the human race; in fact, to understand that we thinking, knowledge-

finding, conscious humans are actually nothing less than the heroes of the story of life

on Earth! This is because our fully conscious mind is surely natures greatest invention

and to have had to endure the torture of being unjustly condemned as evil for solong (the

anthropological evidence indicates we humans have been fully conscious for some two

million years) must make usthe absolute heroes of the story of life on Earth.

And BEST OF ALL, because this explanation of the human condition is redeeming

and thus rehabilitating, all our upset angry, egocentric and alienated behaviour now

subsides, bringing about the complete TRANSFORMATION OF THE HUMAN RACEand

importantly, understanding of the human condition doesnt condone bad behaviour, ithealsand, by so doing, endsit. From being competitive, selfish and aggressive, humans

return to being cooperative, selfless and loving. Our round of departure hasended. The

poet T.S. Eliot wonderfully articulated our species journey from an original innocent,

yet ignorant, state, to a psychologically upset fallen, corrupted state, and back to an

uncorrupted, but this time enlightened, state when he wrote, We shall not cease from

exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for

the first time (Little Gidding, 1942).

Yes, finding the exonerating, redeeming understanding of our dark, troubled,

psychologically upset, human-condition-afflicted existence finally enables the human race

to be healed and thus TRANSFORMEDit makes us wholeagain, as Jung said it would. To

quote Professor Harry Prosen, a former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association,

on this dreamed-of, greatest of all breakthroughs in science: I have no doubt this biological

explanation of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological

rehabilitation of the human race(Freedom Book 1, 2009, Part 2:2).

Finally the REALmeans to think positively about our lives, to truly motivate and

inspire ourselves and to properly re-build our self-esteem has arrived! We now

have the answer to how to love yourself, the means to end the insecurity of the

human condition!

At last, that exasperating, never-ending parade of false starts to the dreamed-of

utopian state of being free of the agony of the human conditionincluding the 1960sAge of Aquarius movement, the 1970s Peace movement, the 1980s New Age movement,

the 1990s Stop the Greed movement, and now the Anti-Capitalist movement (and these

are just some of the more recent of the litany weve been witness to)comes to an end

with the arrival of the understanding of the human condition that actuallybrings an end

to that terrible human-condition-afflicted existence! Yes, all those endless, superficial,

basically ineffectual think positive, human potential, self development, self

improvement motivational programs through which we tried to defy the human condition

by surrounding ourselves with positive quotes about life and pumping ourselves with

positive thoughts, motivational stories, positive words, inspiring thoughts, happy

thoughts, inspirational thoughts, good thoughts about life, great thoughts, etc, etc,

12



13/113

Copyright Fedmex Pty Ltd (ACN 096 099 286) 2011-2013. All rights reserved.

www.worldtransformation.com/real-answers

etc, are all now made obsolete by the dignifying, uplifting, redeeming, exonerating,

psychologically healing, ameliorating, transforming REALstory about the true

magnificence and heroism of the human race!

As just demonstrated, with understanding of the human conditionfound ALLthe great issues nally become explainable.

See also: What is science?What is love?SoulConscienceGood vs Evil

What is the meaning of life?Is there a God?Our ego and egocentric lives

How can we save the world?ConsciousnessHuman natureWhy do people lie?

For a book of these explanations to keep or give to others, print

The Book of Real Answers to Everything!by Jeremy Grifth,

featuring a Foreword by Professor Harry Prosen, at

www.worldtransformation.com/real-answers

and/or

Watch videos on the biological explanation of the human condition and the

dreamed-of TRANSFORMATIONof the human race that it brings about

at www.worldtransformation.com

and/or

Read Freedom, the denitive book on the world-transforming explanation

of the human condition, at www.worldtransformation.com/freedom

The Human Condition
http://www.worldtransformation.com/real-answers/http://www.worldtransformation.com/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom/http://www.worldtransformation.com/http://www.worldtransformation.com/real-answers/


14/113

What is Science?Written by Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith, 2011

What is science? Coming from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge,

science is humanitys vehicle for the pursuit of knowledge, with the ultimate

knowledge we needed being self-knowledgethe reconciling biological

explanation of our good-and-evil-aficted, seemingly-highly-imperfect, so-called

HUMAN CONDITION!

While its undeniable that we humans

are capable of great love, we also have

an unspeakable history of brutality, rape,

torture, murder and warand the eternal

question has been why? How are we to

explain our species seemingly extremely

flawed state or condition? Even in oureveryday behaviour, why, when the ideals

of life are so clearly to be cooperative,

selfless and loving, are we humans

competitive, selfish and aggressivein

fact, SOruthlessly competitive, selfish

and brutal that human life has become

all but unbearable and we have nearly

destroyed our own planet? The famous

psychoanalyst Carl Jung was forever

saying, wholeness for humans depends

on the ability to own their own shadow,

because he recognised that ONLYfinding

understanding of our dark side could end

our underlying psychological insecurity

about our fundamental goodness and worth as humans and, in so doing, make us whole.

The pre-eminent philosopher Sir Laurens van der Post was making the same point when

he said, True love is love of the difficult and unlovable (Journey Into Russia, 1964, p.145)and Only by

understanding how we were all a part of the same contemporary pattern [of wars, cruelty, greed and

indifference]could we defeat those dark forces with a true understanding of their nature and origin

(Jung and the Story of Our Time, 1976, p.24).

Yes, the REALfrontier for the human raceand most particularly for its designatedvehicle for enquiry, sciencewas never outer space but inner space, the search for this

makes-us-whole, good-and-evil-reconciling, psychologically-rehabilitating, human-

race-transforming-and-thus-human-race-savingUNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN

CONDITION! In 1982the author Marilyn Ferguson wrote these words about humanitys

long dreamed-of liberation from the human condition: Maybe [the scientist-philosopher]

Teilhard de Chardin was right; maybe we are moving toward an omega point [a final unification of

our split selves]Maybe we can finally resolve the planets inner conflict between its neurotic self and

its real self. Our real self knows how to commune, how to createFrom everything Ive seen people

really urgently want the kind of new beginning[that I am]talking about [where humans will live

in]cooperation instead of competition (New Agemag. Aug. 1982).

W:51 H:51


15/113

The immense frustration and danger for humankind is that these words were written

over 30years ago and yet the urgentlyneeded resol[ution]of the inner conflictof our

human condition still hadnt arrivedwhich is in truth the deeper reason for the publics

great disillusionment with science today. In the case of the Australian public, for example,

a 2011Australian Academy of Science report found a staggeringdecline in the number ofAustralian year 11and 12(senior-equivalent) students studying science, from 94percent 20

years ago to just 51percent today (Sydney Morning Herald, 21Dec. 2011).

So the fundamental reason people are asking what is science? is because they want

to know whats wrong with sciencewhy cant it fulfil its principal task of finding the

reconciling understanding of the human condition?!

But, MOST WONDERFULLY, just when we had become exasperated with its

failings, science isnow nally able to provide the dreamed-of, good-and-evil-

reconciling, burden-of-guilt-lifting, inner conict-resolv[ing], human-race-

transforming EXPLANATION OF THE HUMAN CONDITION! So to the question what

is science?, we can now say that it is the saviour of the human race, as it wasalways intended to be. (And, as I will elaborate upon shortly, this explanation

of our species deeply psychologically troubled condition is notthe psychosis-

avoiding, trivialising, dishonest account of it that the biologist E.O. Wilson has put

forward in his theory of Eusociality, but the psychosis-addressing-and-solving,

realexplanation of it.)

Before presenting this fabulous, human-race-liberating, ultimate scientic

breakthrough of the real explanation of the human condition, the issue of the

human condition itself, and how science has been coping with it, needs to be

explained.

The truth is, the issue of the human condition has been such a terrifying subject we

humans have hardly been able to acknowledge it existed, let alone admit it was thesubject

that science had to solve if there was to be a future for the human race.

So, what exactly is the human condition? It is the agonising, underlying, core, real

question in all of human life, of are humans good or are we possibly the terrible mistake

that all the evidence seems to unequivocally indicate we might be? As pointed out, while

its undeniable that we humans are capable of great love, we also have an unspeakable

history of brutality, rape, torture, murder and war. Yes, despite all our marvellous

accomplishments, we humans have been the most ferocious and destructive force that has

ever lived on Earthand the eternal question hasbeen why?

Unableuntil nowto truthfully answer this deepest and darkest of questions of

are we humans fundamentally good or bad, we learnt to avoid the whole depressingsubject, so much so, in fact, that the human condition has been described as the personal

unspeakable, and as the black box inside of humans they cant go near! Indeed, Carl Jung was

referring to the terrifying subject of the human condition when he wrote that When it [our

shadow]appearsit is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil

of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil

(Aionin The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9/2, p.10). Yes, the face of absolute evilis the shattering

possibilityif we allowed our minds to think about itthat we humans might indeed be a

terrible mistake!

The truth is, the subject of the human condition has been SOterrifyingSO

shattering[ly]suicidally depressingthat living in complete denial of it has been humans

15

What is Science?


16/113

only way of surviving. Indeed, avoiding depressing thoughts about our highly imperfect,

even fallen or corrupted condition through evasion, denial, escapism, self-distraction

and block-out has been the main feature of human behaviour since humans first became

conscious and the human condition emerged some two million years ago! Socrates

famously said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and its true that we needed to findunderstanding of ourselves, examinethe issue of the human condition, BUTits also true

that trying to go anywhere near the subject, trying to conduct any examin[ation]of the

human condition, raised such shatteringdoubts about our meaning and worth as humans

that it wasnt worthdoing if we were to actually continue living! In fact, since almost

any thinking on any subject brought our mind one way or another into contact with the

unbearable issue of the human condition, even that most basic task for conscious humans

has been a nightmareas the Australian comedian Rod Quantock once said, Thinking

can get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt (Sydney Morning Herald, 5July 1986). Yes, the

truth is the human mind has had to live on the very surface of existence, live an extremely

superficial, escapist existence. So, while the plea to know what is science? was really

a subliminal cry from the heart to understand why science couldnt solve the humancondition and liberate humankind from its unbearable grip, we can nowappreciate that

there has been a verygood reason why it couldntand that was because the human race,

which of course includes scientists, has been sodeeply committed to avoiding the issue of

the human condition that thinking truthfully and thus effectively about the all-important

subject of the human condition has been all but impossible!

So, far from being practitioners of an allegedly rigorously objective and impartial

scientic method, scientists have necessarily had to avoid, by whatever

dishonest means possible, any truths that brought the unbearable, unconfrontable

issue of the human condition into focus.

What happened was that to avoid the suicidally dangerous, yet-all-important,

overarching, whole view of the issue of the human condition the vast majority of scientists

necessarily became what has been termed reductionistand mechanisticthey reduced

their focus to only looking down at the details about the mechanisms of the workings of

our world. The implicit hope was that by finding understanding of those mechanisms they

would at least be assembling the means by which the human condition might one day be

able to be explainedand that is exactly what they achieved. As will be explained shortly,

through the gradual accumulation of knowledge about the mechanisms and workings of

our world, scientists found understanding of the difference in the way genes and nerves

function, which is the key insight that at last made it possible to present the penetrating,

fully accountable, truthful, psychosis-addressing-and-solving (not E.O. Wilsonsdishonest, psychosis-denying) explanation of the human condition.

What then were the great truths that reductionist, mechanistic scientists had no

choice but to avoid while the truthful explanation of the human condition was still

to be found? There were, in fact, six main unconfrontable truths, the rstbeing the

truth of the integrative meaning of existence.

The worlds greatest physicists, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein, have said,

respectively, that The overwhelming impression is of order[in]the universe (The Time of His Life,

Gregory Benford, Sydney Morning Herald, 28Apr. 2002), and that behind everything is an order (Einstein

16



17/113

Revealed, PBS, 1997). Yes, this orderISapparent everywhere. Over the eons a chaotic universe

organised itself into stars, planets and galaxies. Here on Earth, atoms became ordered or

integrated to form moleculeswhich in turn integrated to form compoundsvirus-

like organismssingle-celled organismsmulticellular organismsand then

societies of multicellular organisms. Overall, what is happening on Earth is that matter isbecoming ordered into larger wholes. So the theme or purpose or meaning of existence is

the ordering or integration or complexification of matter, a process that is driven by the

physical law of Negative Entropy. Holism, which the dictionary defines as the tendency

in nature to form wholes (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 5th edn, 1964), and teleology, which is defined

as the belief that purpose and design are a part of nature (Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edn, 1998), are both

terms that recognise this integrative tendency.

The great problem, however, with this truth of the holistic, teleological integrative

meaning of existence is that for a larger whole to form and hold together the parts of

that whole must consider the welfare of the whole above their own welfareput simply,

selfishness is divisive or disintegrativewhile selflessness is integrative. So consider-

others-above-yourself, altruistic, unconditional selflessness is the underlying theme ofexistence. Its the glue that holds the world together and what we really mean by the

term love. Indeed, if we consider religious terminology, the old Christian word for

love was caritas, which means charity or giving or selflessness; see Col. 3:14, 1Cor.

13:113, 10:24, and John 15:13. Of these biblical references, Colossians 3:14perfectly

summarises the integrative significance of love: And over all these virtues put on love, which

binds them all together in perfect unity.In John 15:13we also see that Christ emphasised the

unconditionally selfless significance of the word love when he said, Greater love has

no-one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.BUTacknowledging and accepting

this truththat the meaning of existence is to be integrativecooperative, selflessand

lovingleft humans feeling unbearably condemned as bad, evil or unworthy for our

divisivecompetitive, selfish and aggressive, seemingly-unlovingbehaviour. Clearly, ONLY

when we could truthfully explain the good reason WHYwe humans have not been ideally

behavedtruthfully explain the human condition no less, which fortunately we now can

would it be psychologically safe to confront, admit and accept the truth of the integrative,

selfless and loving meaning of existence.

Furthermore, the concept of God is actually our personification of this truth of

Integrative Meaning, and if we include more of what Hawking and Einstein said we can see

that they both agree. Hawking: The overwhelming impression is of order. The more we discover

about the universe, the more we find that it is governed by rational laws. If one liked, one could say that

this order was the work of God. Einstein thought soWe could call order by the name of God (The

Time of His Life, Gregory Benford, Sydney Morning Herald, 28Apr. 2002); and,I would use the term God as theembodiment of the laws of physics (Master of the Universe, BBC, 1989). Einstein: over time, I have come

to realise that behind everything is an order that we glimpse only indirectly [because its unbearably

confronting/condemning!]. This is religiousness. In this sense, I am a religious man (Einstein

Revealed, PBS, 1997). As it says in the Bible, God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). God isthe integrative,

unconditionally selfless theme of existence. Again, the problem was that until we could

truthfully explain the human condition we needed the concept of God to remain safely

abstract and undefinedwe couldnt afford to demystify God as being the integrative,

selfless and loving theme of existence. We humans have been, as we say, God-fearingin

fact, God-revering to the point of being God-worshippingnotGod-confronting!

17

What is Science?


18/113


19/113

corruption of Darwins idea of natural selection was an extremely convenient, lucky

substitutionbecause it held that when you dominated and defeated others you were simply

meeting your biological obligations to be a success. As far as Social Darwinists were

concerned, the purpose of existence is to selfishly ensure your own survival.

But despite this evasion, we competitive and aggressive humans were still not offthe hookbecause while members of most species do compete and fight with each other

for food, space, shelter and a mate, not all situations in nature are characterised by selfish

competition and aggression. Worker ants and bees, in particular, demonstrate extremely

selfless, consider-the-larger-whole-above-self, cooperative, functional behaviour within

their colonies. And, in the case of us humans, as well as a capacity to be competitive,

aggressive and selfish, we also have an altruistic cooperative, selfless and loving side to

our nature, as evidenced by charity workers helping the poor or rescuers putting their own

lives on the line when saving others. Indeed, we have an instinctive sense of morality,

what we recognise as our conscience. So, if the meaning of existence is to be selfish, as

Social Darwinists maintained, then why dont ants and bees behave selfishlyand, most

particularly, why do humans have selfless, moral instincts?Clearly, to avoid the unbearable issue of the human condition, mechanistic scientists

needed to find a way around this fact that not all situations in nature are characterised

by selfishness, competition and aggression. It was E.O. Wilson who finally provided a

solution to this problem when, in his famous 1975book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,

he explained that while individual worker ants/bees appear to be behaving unconditionally

selflessly, they are actually each behaving selfishly, because by selflessly looking after

their colony and its queen who carries the genes for their existence they are indirectly

selfishly ensuring the reproduction of their own genes. The point Wilson was making

truthfully enoughis that while such instances of reciprocity in ant and bee colonies

involve selflessness, such selflessness is actually a subtle form of selfishnessit is still,

in essence, selfish behaviour.

The obvious reason Sociobiologybecame famous is because its selfish reciprocity

explanation could be usedbut this time dishonestlyto dismiss allselfless behaviour

in nature, includingour selfless moral nature, as nothing more than a manifestation of

this reciprocity-based subtle variety of selfishness. Indeed, Wilson said as much when,

in Sociobiology, he described his work as the systematic study of the biological basis of all

social behaviorincluding man (p.4). In his 1978book, On Human Nature, Wilson was more

explicit in his dismissal of our moral nature as being fundamentally selfish, asserting

that our Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate functionother than to ensure human

genetic materialwill be kept intact (p.167). In taking up the Sociobiology cause, the zoologist

Richard Dawkins was also brazen in his assertion that humans are intrinsically selfish,stating in his 1976book The Selfish Genethat We [humans]are survival machinesrobot

vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as geneswe, and all other

animals, are machines created by our geneswe are born selfish (1989 edn, pp.v, 2, 3). The human-

condition-side-stepping, selfishness-is-all-that-is-occurring-in-nature account had

supposedly been confirmed.

It is true that the gene-based system for developing the order of matter normally

cant develop unconditional selflessness because if an unconditionally selfless, altruistic

trait emerges it doesnt tend to carry on. The greatertruth, however, is that while

unconditionally selfless traits normally cant be developed genetically, that doesnt mean

that unconditional selflessness is not meaningful in nature, as Sociobiologists would

19

What is Science?


20/113

argueit simply means that the gene-based refinement or learning system, or genetics,

is a limited tool for developing the order or integration of matter. The fact is, genetics

would develop unconditional selflessness if it could, but because of the way it works, it

normally cant. Not that this greater truth stopped human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic

biologists from using the fact that selfish behaviour is seemingly universal in nature toargue that selfish, self-preservation is, therefore, the natural way to behave. (The reason I

have said that genetics cant normally develop unconditional selflessness is because there

was one way it could be developed genetically and that was through nurturing, which is

how we humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moral instincts, all of which will be

explained shortly.)

In time, the use of the Sociobiological selfish explanation for the apparently selfless

behaviour in social species such as ants and bees to dishonestly dismiss our own moral

nature as also being a form of this subtle selfishness became known as the theory of

Evolutionary Psychology. But given the workers in ant and bee colonies are the offspring

of their queenthey are her relatives or kinthe Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology

explanation of social behaviour could also be described as kin selection. It follows thenthat this kin selection-based explanation for the development of social behaviour in social

species like ants and bees could also supposedly be used to explain social behaviour

between individuals who are not immediateoffspring like the worker ants and bees

are, but where it could be argued that the individuals involved are genetically related.

And it was in this broader interpretation of kin selection that the opportunity existed to

dishonestly attribute instances of humans behaving in a unconditionally selfless, moral

way to them selfishly fostering the reproduction of their own genes in the individuals

they were helpingwhich is exactly what Evolutionary Psychologists did. They argued

that the moral instincts that incline us to help others are nothing more than an instance of

the subtle variety of genetic selfishness that impels an individual to help another in order

to indirectly ensure their own genes carry onwhich, if it was the case, would mean we

dont have unconditionally selfless, genuinely moral instincts at all. As the science writer

Robert Wright wrote in his boldly titled 1994book The Moral AnimalWhy we are the

way we are: The new science of evolutionary psychology: What is in our genes interests

is what seems rightmorally right, objectively right, whatever sort of rightness is in order,In

short: moral guidance is a euphemism (pp.325, 216). Not long after Wright published his book

Wilson returned to the fray with his own publication, in 1998, of Consilience: The Unity of

Knowledge, in which he made another direct attack on our species wonderful genuinely

altruistic, all-loving, peaceful, innocent, pre-human-condition state, the instinctive

memory of which is our moral self or soul or psyche (from the Greek wordpsykhe,

meaning breath, life, soul (Online Etymology Dictionary)), writing that [Jean-Jacques]Rousseauclaimed [that humanity]was originally a race of noble savages in a peaceful state of nature, who were

later corrupted[but what]Rousseau invented [was]a stunningly inaccurate form of anthropology

(1998, p.37).

The truth of course is that, far from being merely a euphemism, our moral instincts

are, as just stated, unconditionallyselfless,fullyaltruistic, truly loving, genuinelymoral

instinctsthey are nothinglike the selfish, reciprocity-derived instincts found in many

animal species. Charles Darwin recognised the truenot stunningly inaccuratenob[ility]

of our moral nature and its fundamental difference to the subtle forms of selfishness we

see practiced by some other animals when he wrote that the moral sense affords the best and

highest distinction between man and the lower animals (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.495). Indeed, the

20



21/113

philosopher Immanuel Kant was so impressed by our truly altruistic moral instincts that

he had the following words inscribed on his tomb: there are two things which fill me with

awe: the starry heavens above us, and the moral law within us. And Darwin and Kant were not

unique in their admiration, for all our mythologies recognise that we humans didonce

live in an unconditionally selfless, cooperative, harmonious, loving, innocent, Garden-of-Eden-like Golden Age, the instinctive memory of which is our moral soulas the author

Richard Heinberg acknowledged in his 1990bookMemories & Visions of Paradise: Every

religion begins with the recognition that human consciousness has been separated from the divine

Source, that a former sense of onenesshas been losteverywhere in religion and myth there is an

acknowledgment that we have departed from an originalinnocence (pp.81, 82). For example, the

eighth century BCGreek poet Hesiod referred to the pre-human-condition-afflicted, upset-

free, innocent Golden Age in our species past in his poem Theogony: When gods alike

and mortals rose to birth /A golden race the immortals formed on earthLike gods they lived, with

calm untroubled mind /Free from the toils and anguish of our kind /Nor eer decrepit age misshaped

their frameStrangers to ill, their lives in feasts flowed byDying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to

die /Theirs was each good; the life-sustaining soil /Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil /Theywith abundant goods midst quiet lands /All willing shared the gathering of their hands.Yes, as that

greatest of poets William Wordsworth most beautifully described the instinctive memory

that we are born with of a fully cooperative, all-loving, integrative-meaning-orientated

past existence, The Soul that rises with us, our lifes Starcometh from afartrailing clouds of

glory do we come, from God, who is our home (Intimations of Immortality, 1807). Our instincts areto be

cooperative, selfless and loving. Our currentpsychologicallytroubled, competitive, selfish

and aggressive behaviour emerged when we humans became consciousbut again, to

confront that truth we first had to know the realreason why our original instinctive self or

soul became corrupted.

Yes, while it is true that when the need for denial is critical any excuse will do,

the Social Darwinism/Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology/selfishness-is-

only-natural explanation for our competitive, selfish and aggressive human condition

cant be the realexplanation for it. For a start, it overlooks the fact that our human

behaviour involves our unique fully conscious thinking mind. Descriptions like

egocentric, arrogant, deluded, artificial, hateful, mean, immoral, alienated, etc, all imply

a consciousness-derived,psychologicaldimension to ourbehaviour. The realissue

the psychological problem in our thinking minds that we have suffered fromis the

dilemma of our human condition, the issue of our species good-and-evil-afflicted,

less-than-ideal, seemingly-imperfect, even fallen or corrupted, state. We humans suffer

from a consciousness-derived,psychologicalHUMAN CONDITION, notan instinct-

controlled animal conditionour condition is unique to us fully conscious humans. Thescientist-philosopher Arthur Koestler pointed out this obvious truth when he said that

the murderous, paranoiac, duplicitoussymptoms of the mental disorder which appears to be

endemic in our speciesare specifically and uniquely human, and not found in any other species.

Thus it seems only logical that our search for explanations [of our human condition]should also

concentrate primarily on those attributes of homo sapienswhich are exclusively human and not

shared by the rest of the animal kingdom. But however obvious this conclusion may seem, it runs

counter to the prevailing reductionistbelief that all human activities can beexplained by the

behavioural responses of lower animalsThat is why the scientific establishment has so pitifully failed

to define the predicament of man (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978, p.19). Yes, you cant think effectively

if youre lying. But again, although relating our consciousness-induced, psychological

21

What is Science?


22/113

human behaviour to the instinct-controlled behaviour of other animals was a patent lie,

it did serve to relieve humans of the unbearable issue of the human condition while

understanding of it was not yet found.

So, overall, with the kin-selection-based theory of Sociobiology/Evolutionary

Psychology, the selfishness is all that is occurring in nature excuse had seemingly beenupheld. In the case of humans it was being claimed that we have brutal savage animal

instincts that account for our extremely competitive, aggressive and selfish behaviour,

as well as some selfless instincts, which are not actually unconditionally selfless, truly

altruistic, moral instincts because they are a product of reciprocity and are therefore

intrinsically selfishinstincts.

HOWEVER, given we all do intuitively know that what Rousseau, Darwin, Kant,

Heinberg, Hesiod and Wordsworth said about the unconditionally selfless, genuinely

altruistic nature of our moral soul is true, it should come as little surprise that a backlash

developed against this patent lie that our moral nature is nothing more than a subtle form

of selfishness, a strategy to reproduce our genes. The truth was that kin selection failed

to even begin to explain the truly altruistic, amazing, distinct-from-other-animals, awe-inspiring, lifes Starof our species Integrative Meaning or God-aligned, moralsoul.

Our moral instincts are unconditionallyloving, universallyselfless; they are notcontingent

upon those we help having to share our gene pool. As the journalist Bryan Appleyard

pointed out about this serious limitation of the kin-selection-based theory of Sociobiology/

Evolutionary Psychology, biologists still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism.

If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to

do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the world is full of all sorts of elaborate

forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness (Brave New Worlds:

Staying Human in a Genetic Future, 1998, p.112).

Clearly, mechanistic scientists had to find a human-condition-avoiding way to

fix this gaping hole, a way to solve this problem of the offensiveness of Evolutionary

Psychologys lie that our moral instincts are selfish.

And again it was none other than E.O. Wilson who came to the rescue with a

contrived solution. Yes, in his 2012book The Social Conquest of Earthto the dismay

of his earlier supportersWilson dismissed his previous Sociobiology/Evolutionary

Psychology theory as being incorrect(p.143)and put forward a new theory that not only

contrived a non-human-condition-confronting explanation for our genuinely moral

instincts, but took the art of evasive denial to the absolute extreme by also contriving a

non-human-condition-confronting explanation of the human condition itself!

Known as Multilevel Selection or the Theory of Eusociality(ibid. p.183)(eusociality

simply meaning genuine sociality), this theory maintains that humans have instinctsderived from natural selection operating at the individual level, where members of a

species selfishly compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate, andinstincts derived

from natural selection supposedly operating at the group level, where groups of altruistic,

cooperative members supposedly outcompete groups of selfish, non-cooperative

memberswith the selfish individual level instincts supposedly being the bad/sinful

aspects of our nature, and the supposed selfless group-selected instincts being the good/

virtuous aspect of our nature. According to Wilson, Individual selection is responsible for

much of what we call sin, while group selection is responsible for the greater part of virtue. Together

they have created the conflict between the poorer and the better angels of our nature(ibid. p.241).In

22



23/113

summary, Wilson now asserts that The dilemma of good and evil [the human condition] was

created by multilevel selection (ibid).

Before looking at the way in which Multilevel Selection/Eusociality misrepresents

in fact, avoidsthe real, consciousness-derived, psychological aspect of the human

condition, we need to look at the group selection mechanism that Wilson said accountsfor our moral sense; because, while we do have a genuine moral sense, under scrutiny

Wilsons theory of how we acquired it completely falls apart.

While it is true that, as Wilson stated, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, while

groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals(ibid. p.243), the biological stumbling block is

whether genes, which have to selfishly ensure they reproduce, can develop self-sacrificing

altruistic traits in the first place. The genetic reality is that whenever an unconditionally

selfless, altruistic trait appears those that are selfish will naturally take advantage of it:

Sure, you can help me reproduce my genes but Im not about to help you reproduce

yours! Any selflessness that might arise through group selection will be constantly

exploited by individual selfishness from withinthe group. As the biologist Jerry Coyne

pointed out, altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose itsaltruism through natural selection favoring cheaters(Can Darwinism improve Binghamton?, The New York

Times, 9Sep. 2011).

The only biological models that have been put forward that appear to overcome this

problem of genetic selfishness always prevailing are so complicated and convoluted that

they seem implausible, for they involve groups warring, then peacefully merging, then

separating back out into new groupswith the altruists somehow banding together into

their own groups.

But despite the propensity for unconditionally selfless traits to be exploited and thus

eliminated, Wilson has put forward an argument that warring between groups of early

humans where extreme cooperation would have been an advantage was a strong enough

force to overcome this problem of selfish exploitation and thus allow for the selection of

altruism and the emergence of our genuinely moral instincts. Yes, according to Wilson, our

ability to war successfully somehow produced our ability to love unconditionally!

However, as has been emphasised, standing in stark contrast to Wilsons proclamation

of universal and eternalwarfare (The Social Conquest of Earth, p.65)are not only the cultural

memories enshrined in our myths and religions, and in the words of some of our most

profound thinkers, that attest to humans having a peaceful heritage, but also the evidence

gleaned from studies in primatology and anthropology, such as those of bonobos (Pan

paniscus), which are not only humans closest relatives, but also an extraordinarily

gentle, cooperative and peaceful species. But when discussing bonobos, Wilson merely

cites an instance of bonobos hunting in a group, using that evidence to draw erroneouscomparisons with the more aggressive common chimpanzees; Thats one more problem

out of the way, he seems to be saying.

In summary, our moral instincts are notderived from warring with other groups of

humans, as Wilson and his Eusociality theory of group selection would have us believe.

No, we have an unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, truly loving, universally-

benevolent-not-competitive-with-other-groups, genuinely moral conscience. The savage

instincts in us excuse for our selfish behaviour is entirely inconsistent with the fact that

we have completely moral, NOT partially moral and partially savage, instincts.

Overall then, while selfless instincts have been incorporated into the mix to counter

23

What is Science?


24/113

Evolutionary Psychologys offensive denigration of our moral instincts as being

nothing more than a manifestation of selfish instincts, the same strategy of blaming our

competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour on supposed selfish, brutal instincts has been

maintained.

We now need to look at how Wilsons Multilevel Selection/Eusociality theory avoidsthe real, consciousness-derived-and-inducedpsychologicalaspect of our human condition.

So, if our instincts arewholly peaceful and cooperative (which they are), and we

are notselfish because of selfish instincts (which we are not), from where does our

selfishnessor what Wilson calls our propensity for evilcome? The answer is that it

comes from apsychosis.

As pointed out earlier, our human behaviour involves our unique fully conscious

thinking mind. Descriptions of our condition, such as egocentric, arrogant, deluded,

artificial, hateful, mean, immoral, alienated, etc, all imply a consciousness-derived,

psychologicaldimension to our behaviour. We suffer from the consciousness-induced,

psychological human condition, notthe instinct-controlled animal condition. And so it is

to this psychological dimension to our behaviour that we should look for the causeof ourselfishness.

And yet in Wilsons psychological-problem-avoiding model our consciousness is

merely a mediatorbetween supposed selfish and selfless instincts. He says, Multilevel

selection (group and individual selection combined) also explains the conflicted nature of motivations.

Every normal person feels the pull of conscience, of heroism against cowardice, of truth against

deception, of commitment against withdrawal. It is our fate to be tormentedWe, all of us, live

out our lives in conflict and contention (The Social Conquest of Earth, p.290).Clever semblance of

our conflicted condition, diabolically clever, but entirely untrue, the epitome of shonk/

evasion/ dishonesty/ denial!

(Incidentally, this idea that our condition is a result of selfish and selfless instincts

within us would mean that unless we change our genes we are, as Wilson points out,

intrinsically imperfectible(ibid. p.241)a fate that is completely inconsistent with one of

our central beliefs about the real psychological nature of our condition, which is of it

ultimately being able to be psychologically ameliorated or healed; as anticipated in the

Lords Prayer, Your [the Godly, ideal, cooperative, integrative, peaceful]kingdom come, your will

be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10&Luke 11:2).)

So, in finding a way to avoid the truth of our psychologically conflicted condition

with a non-psychological clever semblance of it, what Wilson has actually done

is notexplain the human condition but nullify it, render the issue benign, virtually

inconsequentialand, in doing so, he is burying humanity into the deepest, darkest corner

of alienating, dishonest denial the world has ever known! Make no mistake, Wilsonsgreat fake, superficial, deliberately-human-condition-trivialising account of the human

condition is the most sophisticated expression of denial to have ever been inventedand

thus the most dangerous. Certainly, providing humans with a get out of jail free carda

way to supposedly explain the human condition withouthaving to confront the issue of

the extreme psychosis and neurosis of our real human conditionis immensely appealing

for the now overly psychologically upset human race, but it is precisely that seductiveness

that is sodangerous. This Ultimate Lie had the potential to seduce the exhausted, relief-

seeking human race to such a degree that it obliterated any chance of the human condition

ever being truthfully confronted and thus understood! Indeed, while denial was necessary

while we couldnt explain ourselves, taking the art of denial to the extreme that Wilson

24



25/113

has done with his dismissal of the fundamental issue before us as a species of our human

condition as nothing more than two different instincts within us that are sometimes at

odds, is a truly sinister lie.

That forms a summary of all the human-condition-avoiding, dishonest, not-truly-

accountable biological theories on human behaviourthe comprehensive description ofwhich can be found in Part 4:12of the freely-available, online book Freedom Book 1.

As we will see when the psychosis-addressing-and-solving, fully accountable and

thus true explanation of the human condition is presented shortly, ever since Darwin

published his idea of natural selection in 1859and revealed that instincts are only

orientations not understandings, there has been sufficient base information to explain the

human conditionand all the other crucial biological questions facing the human race.

The problem, however, has been that if youre committed to living in denial of the human

condition, as mechanistic/reductionist scientists have been, you are in no position to find

the truthful explanation of it. You cant find the truth with liesa point the philosopher

Arthur Schopenhauer was making when he said, The discovery of truth is prevented most

effectivelyby prejudice, whichstands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary wind drivinga ship away from land(Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1970, p.120).

To explain the human condition required thinking about the human condition from

a basis of honestyparticularly about the fact that humans didonce live in a completely

loving, unconditionally selfless state, and that it was only afterthe emergence of our

conscious mind that our present good-and-evil-afflicted, immensely psychologically

upset condition emerged. And it is that truthful and thus effective analysis of the human

condition that is going to be presented here. And, with that truthful explanation of the

human condition now found, we will finally see the emergence of penetrating, effective,

trustworthy science.

So, again, the question what is science? was, in fact, a cry from the heart to know

why mechanistic scientists have been lying through their teethpromenading around with

big confident, authoritative, professorial smiles on their faces while all the time lying like

demonslike the human race as a whole has been doing, desperately avoiding any truths

that brought the issue of the human condition into focus; basically living an immensely

artificial, superficial, insincere, deluded, escapist existence!

Before presenting the truthful, psychosis-addressing-and-solving, real biological

explanation of the human condition it is necessary to introduce the third great

truth that the human race, including the scientic establishment, has lived in

denial of while the human condition was yet to be explainedwhich is the nature

of consciousness.Anyone who has searched the term consciousness will have found it to be a subject

cloaked with mystery and confusion, but there has been a verygood reason for this, and

its not because consciousness is an impenetrably complex subjectits because it raised,

as has been emphasised, the unbearable issue of the human condition. In fact, the subject

of consciousness brought our mind soquickly into contact with the agonisingly depressing

issue of the human condition that consciousness had become synonymous withindeed,

code forthe problem of the human condition.

In his book Complexity, the science writer Roger Lewin described the great difficulty

we have had of trying to illuminate the phenomena of consciousnessas a tough challenge

perhaps the toughest of all (1993, p.153). To illustrate the nature and extent of the difficulty,

25

What is Science?
http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-the-great-denials-in-biology/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-the-great-denials-in-biology/http://www.worldtransformation.com/freedom-the-great-denials-in-biology/


26/113

Lewin relayed the philosopher Ren Descartes own disturbed reaction when he tried

to contemplate consciousness: So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrownthat I

can neither put them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if I have fallen

unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the

bottom nor swim up to the top(p.154)

. Yes, trying to think about consciousness meant tryingto understand whatwhen we humans are the only fully conscious, reasoning, intelligent,

extraordinarily clever, can-get-a-man-on-the-moon animalis so intelligent and clever

about being so competitive, selfish and aggressive; in fact, as mentioned earlier, so

ruthlessly competitive, selfish and brutal that human life has become all but unbearable

and we have nearly destroyed our own planet?! No wonder, as it says in Genesis, having

taken the fruitfrom the tree of the knowledge (3:3, 2:17)that was desirable for gaining wisdom

(3:6)that is, having become fully conscious, thinking, knowledge-finding beingswe

humans became so destructively behaved, so apparently lacking in wisdom, that we

seemingly deserved to be condemned and banishedfrom the Garden of Eden(3:23)as

defiling, unworthy, evil beings! Instead of being wonderful, our state of consciousness

appeared to be THEgreat evil influence on Earth. Our conscious mind appeared to be toblame for all the devastation and human suffering in the world! That is how serious are

the doubtsthat thinking about consciousness produced within us!! Yes, a fearful, all-our-

moorings-taken-from-under-us, deep whirlpoolof terrible depression awaited us if we

thought about consciousness.

Thus, unableuntil nowto explain our species consciousness-induced, good-

and-evil-afflicted, seemingly-imperfect, psychologically-troubled human condition we

learnt to avoid the whole depressing subject of consciousness and the issue it raised of the

human condition. But now that we can truthfully explain the human condition, we can

safely present the, as it turns out, simple explanation of consciousness.

So, what is the truthful, human-condition-confronting-not-avoiding, human-

psychosis-addressing-and-solving, realbiological explanation for our present

competitive, selsh and aggressive human condition? And, beyond that, what

is the truthfulbiological explanation for the origin of our human species

unconditionallyseless, fullyaltruistic, truly loving, genuinely moral instincts?

Firstly then, how are we to resolve the planets inner conict between its

neurotic self and its real self and, by so doing, reach the unifying omega point

in our species development, as de Chardin anticipated? What is the dreamed-

of, reconciling, redeeming, rehabilitating and HUMAN-RACE-TRANSFORMING

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF THE HUMAN CONDITION?

The fully accountable and thus true explanation of the human condition begins withan analysis of what exactly consciousness is, and what was the effect of its emergence in

humans, because onlyby confronting not avoiding the issue of what consciousness is can

we arrive at the redeeming explanation of our seemingly-highly-imperfect competitive,

selfish and aggressive human condition.

Very briefly, nerves were originally developed for the coordination of movement in

animals, but, once developed, their ability to store impressionswhich is what we refer

to as memorygave rise to the potential to develop understanding of cause and effect.

If you can remember past events, you can compare them with current events and identify

regularly occurring experiences. This knowledge of, or insight into, what has commonly

occurred in the past enables you to predict what is likely to happen in the future and to

26



27/113

adjust your behaviour accordingly. Once insights into the nature of change are put into

effect, the self-modified behaviour starts to provide feedback, refining the insights further.

Predictions are compared with outcomes and so on. Much developed, and such refinement

occurred in the human brain, nerves can sufficiently associateinformation to reason

how experiences are related, learn to understandand become CONSCIOUSof, or awareof, or intelligentabout, the relationship between events that occur through time. Thus

consciousness means being sufficiently aware of how experiences are related to attempt to

manage change from a basis of understanding.

What is so significant about this process is that once our nerve-based learning system

became sufficiently developed for us to become conscious and able to effectively manage

events, our conscious intellect was then in a position to wrest control from our gene-based

learning systems instincts, which, up until then, had been controlling our lives. Basically,

once our self-adjusting intellect emerged it was capable of taking over the management of

our lives from the instinctive orientations we had acquired through the natural selection of

genetic traits that adapted us to our environment.

HOWEVER, it was at this juncture, when our conscious intellect challenged ourinstincts for control, that a terrible battle broke out between our instincts and intellect, the

effect of which was the extremely competitive, selfish and aggressive state that we call the

human condition.

To elaborate, when our conscious intellect emerged it was neither suitable nor

sustainable for it to be orientatedby instinctsit had tofind understandingto operate

effectively and fulfil its great potential to manage life. However, when our intellect began

to exert itself and experiment in the management of life from a basis of understanding, in

effect challenging the role of the already established instinctual self, a battle unavoidably

broke out between the instinctive self and the newer conscious self.

Our intellect began to experiment in understanding as the only means of discovering

the correct and incorrect understandings for managing existence, but the instinctsbeing

in effect unaware or ignorant of the intellects need to carry out these experiments

opposed any understanding-produced deviations from the established instinctive

orientations: they criticised and tried to stop the conscious minds necessary search

for knowledge. To illustrate the situation, imagine what would happen if we put a fully

conscious mind on the head of a migrating bird. The bird is following an instinctive

flight path acquired over thousands of generations of natural selection, but it now

has a conscious mind that needs to understandhow to behave, and the only way it

can acquire that understanding is by experimenting in understandingfor example,

thinking, Ill fly down to that island and have a rest. But such a deviation from the

migratory flight path would naturally result in the instincts resisting the deviation,leaving the conscious intellect in a serious dilemma: if it obeys its instincts it will

not feel criticised by its instincts but neither will it find knowledge. Obviously, the

intellect could not afford to give in to the instincts, and unable to understand and thus

explain why its experiments in self-adjustment were necessary, the conscious intellect

had no way of refuting the implicit criticism from the instincts even though it knew

it was unjust. Until the conscious mind found the redeeming understanding of why it

had to defy the instincts (namely the scientific understanding of the difference in the

way genes and nerves process information, that one is an orientating learning system

while the other is an insightful

BookOfAnswers

Documents

Transcript of BookOfAnswers